I think that Captain_America addressed me in asking:
"ok ley's not even worry about my first two points, how about letting your son rape and kill women as a hobby? several eye witness reports. how about those?"

Are you asking me if I think it's ok to rape women, even if it's my son doing the raping? No. There's your answer. Will you ask me, next, if I feel it's ok for the american government to starve thousands of innocent brown children? How do you think I'm going to answer? eh? and it's ok with you?

god damn...i saw nelson mandela's speech live,... that man spoke the truth, that's all i know. Does anyone else even know about the speech?

At the moment, who is more inclined to help terrorists.

One with a hawk watching every move it makes, or the one already claiming right to first strike America, claiming it has the bombs, knowing it has the bombs, and is stockpiling more bombs as we speak. How much better to deploy the bombs by using terrorists?

Discuss.

Gryn
which "brown children" are you talking about?

Captain America - If he does that, I've got a feeling that all of those militant groups in the midwest will rise up and try to overthrow him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Hussein is a good man. I'm saying that in a situation like this, there is an inherent need for objectivity, not subjectivity. We can't afford to have a point of view (subjective) interfere with a decision.

Objective:
Saddam openly admits that he has WOMD, and openly threatens to use them against the Zionist Empire. It's objective, because there are no opinions in that, just facts.

Subjective:
Saddam is suspected of having WOMD, and despite the inspectors findings, some groups want war in order to "force the truth". That's subjective because it's only a suspicion (which is a personal thing).

I don't think that the parents, wives, children, friends, and extended family of soldiers who would die in a war in Iraq would be appreciative to find out that the soldier died on a suspicion that was proven wrong during the military action. It'd be a wasted life.

Leshik, Bush isn't a sociopath really.. He is more a selfish Frat Boy who has been polished up and made quasi presentable to the fat, white, moral and conservative power structure who were also, once a bunch of frat-brats.
Bush is, in his soul, a man too embarressed by his own short-comings to admit to them, yet spoiled enough by his families wealth and power to assume he is gods gift to leadership.
Basically he is an ignorant, recovering (Maybe) drunk with to much money and the maturity of a four year old pining for a candy bar in the grocery store.
What is worse, he isn't running the show, his Dady's cronies are steering him every step of the way. So basically, the same people that armed Bin Laden are the people now defining the fight against Bin Laden... AND then it was about oil and NOW it is all about OIL.

Captain_America asked:
"which "brown children" are you talking about?"

God, Sir America, are you really that.. I mean.. huh? Iraqi children, maybe?

Gryn
ok that is i thought you were talking about. see here is the problem the US had nothing to do with the sanctions. those are UN sanctions. so the US isn't starving anyone. also iraq is allowed to sell oil for humanitarian purposes such as feeding children. so please enlighten me exactly how are those "starving brown children" the fault of the US. i think sadam should be removed from power so that these children can eat. don't you?

Gryn
"Will you ask me, next, if I feel it's ok for the american government to starve thousands of innocent brown children? ... God, Sir America, are you really that.. I mean.. huh? Iraqi children, maybe?"

Please explain what convoluted BS you are using for logic to make a bogus statement like that? Pick one:

A) Does it make a difference that they are "brown"?

B) Are we running around yanking food from thier faces as they try to eat?

C) Is the asshat running thier country farking around with thier lives and futures?

by the way has anyone else noticed that all of the iraqi exiles support the US in this war on iraq? anyone wonder why? here is a link to a letter from iraqi exiles to Tony Blair supporting the war. interesting reading.

iraqi letter

b>Frksamor: we got in it to save our collective financial ass

I really can't let that one go. America stayed out till Japan bombed Pearl Harbour. Even then, they waited till Hitler declared war on America before reciprocating.



Bass555

Firstly, at the time of Hitler, there was no European community. I also take issue with the implication that appeasement indicates a 'lack of testicular fortitude' (and I'll be stealing that phrase for future use). I accept that, looking back, it would have been better had Hitler been dealt with earlier but with the benefit of hindsight, we'd win the lottery every week. Finally, no-one is currently advocating appeasement (except, ironically, Germany who've painted themselves into a corner). All people are saying is that there is no danger in the foreseeable future so we don't need to rush at this like a bull at a gate.

Captain_America

Crap, I guess you missed that "other" flame war. The U.S. has everything to do with those starving "chillens" as Bush might say. I mean.. what with two of the U.N. Security Council members left in disgust at what the U.S. was doing regarding the starving of innocent people in Iraq. And please don't try to suggest the u.s. doesn't have enough veto power to do whatever it damn well pleases in any vote threat by the UN.

And yes, I believe Sadam should be removed.. but at what cost? At the cost of amereecuh replacing him with a less evil dictator? As if that could actually happen?

I'd rather feed the children with mana, personaly.

Wow this topic has deviated extremely quickly. Amazing how fast interest is lost in terrorism that isn't in America's backyard.

Speaking of deviating from the topic Purple_Jack I'm from Maastricht too and am barely alive after this weeks drinking binge. One more night of carnival and I think my liver would be nothing more than an internal ornament. Insane Dutchies :P Great fun though.

Don't forget, Islam is a religion of peace!

Captain_America

And when the US installs a puppet government to harvest the oil, will you sell it off to feed the children?

Blackvampyr
"Saddam is suspected of having WOMD"

That's not a subjective statement. It's not subjective just because something is suspected and not proven.

If something is done subjectively, it requires no proof or argument. For example, if a professor grades a paper subjectively (which they often do), they are grading it based on what they feel is appropriate, not by any set guidelines.

When you suspect something, it can be just as easily based on facts as it can on subjectivity. For example, I can suspect you are a liberal because your view on this seems to be biased in that direction. That's not a subjective suspicion, that's based on a pretty objective analysis of your statements, but it's still a suspicion until you verfiy it.

Lipo... Keep turning the other cheek and eventually, you run out of cheeks.

Gryn
ok so liberals want UN approval for military action (which is OK, i guess) but when a UN resolution is enforced it is the fault of the US. do you really think the UN would pass a resolution that would starve children? no, it is sadam's fault.
and what is "mana"? it is not in my dictionary. did i miss a fark cliche?

Purple_Jack: Please see my earlier post, posted at 9:32 AM

03-05-03 09:02:39 AM Bass555
At this point in time, with U2 flights regulary taking place over Iraq and with UN inspectors crawling all over the place, can we legitimately say that Iraq poses an immediate threat?

Not taking sides here, just posting hypotheticals and seeing people's reactions. Yours was very telling.

X_Berg
do you think the people of iraq will not be better off with sadam gone?
here's an article on the torture of iraqis. what do you think we should do?
torture article

Captain_America

"mana".. what dicionary are you using? Try http://www.dictionary.com it's there.

=)

Anyway, yes, I think the UN would pass nearly any resolution as long as the U.S. didn't "veto" it.. as they have vetoed so many other resolutions that didn't go with their imperialist directive.

And as far as it being Sadam's fault.. go back to the '40's and ask most Nazis how they felt about killing innocents of other "races" mmmkay?

Purple_jack, Correction... Though not having officially DECLARED War, in 1940
3 Sep USA trades Britain 50 destroyers for Atlantic bases.
16 Sep USA introduces conscription (The Draft).
July 1941 United States establishes a military base in Iceland.
August 14, 1941 United States and Great Britain set forth the Atlantic Charter, which announces their post-war objectives.
November 1941 Congress authorizes arming of American merchant ships.
December 7, 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, Philippines, and Guam; U.S. Pacific fleet crippled

So, you can see, we were moving to War with Germany well before the Japanese attacked, we just weren't decalring it... Kinda like in Vietnam.

You know.. I know I am misspelling words here.. but I'm not doing all that badly for being FARKING DRUNK! =)

Skin_

I really enjoyed my first one but his was my 5th so I hid under my table all through it. I find there's only so much watered down beer, tacky home-made costumes and crap music a man can handle. It's basically Mardi Gras - but staged in a freezer and accompanied by German 'oompah' music. On the plus side, I'm one of the few in work today without a hangover.

Isreal who has more human rights violations than Iraq, gets our aid instead of our bombs. Unfortunately, it seems as though one can never point out that the Isreali government are also a bunch of foaming at the mouth assholes, or you get equated with Hitler.

When the Iraeli gov't does something assinine we don't like, we let them know. I seem to remember us getting pissed at them when they started driving tanks in and killing people about 6 months back. The difference is, we can afford time for diplomacy in that situation because they're not in a position or mindset to attack us.

Sanctions, as much as they do make life suck for a country, are sort of diplomatic warfare. The idea is that if life sucks for the people of a country, they will demand change and their gov't will be forced to negotiate. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen very easily and people just get pissed at the US because it's easier and less risky then acting against their government.

If you're an American, and you honestly believe that this country wholly or even mostly responsible for starving children ANYWHERE, then I feel bad for you because you've lost faith in humanity.

Feukulor
i think the logic is that you stop the bombings when they are in the planning stage.
kubar tower bombing - we did nothing so
first WTC bombing - we did nothing so
embasy bombings - we did nothing so
USS Cole bombing - we did nothing so
sept. 11 - we get pissed off and terorists and the people who finance them get captured. the #2 guy they just cought was planning to blow up gas stations and take down suspension bridges. that won't happen now. because we did something.

(by the way i may have some of those events switched.

Captain_America

Ousting Saddam does not require over 300,000 US troops, it requires intel, and that Canadian sniper which nailed that 1000+ yard shot.

Secondly, your post makes no referance to what i asked. Do you think America will truely take interest in the Iraq people, or for Iraq Oil to help the Iraq people? Much like Afghanistan, which is now constructing a large pipeline which was blocked many times by the Taliban?

Gryn
Yeah, pretty cool how that works, huh? ;-)

You should try playing Quake drunk. It's awesome. :-p

Feukulor
Basically, there just seems to be something fundamentally flawed with the logic that one would stop bombings by blowing some things up.
Who is suggesting that blowing some things up would stop bombings?

But we're blowing things up because we're the good guys.
I'm sure terrorists use this same logic every day.
By 'we', I assume you're referring to Americans? What are Americans blowing up?

Byrd wrote:
"If you're an American, and you honestly believe that this country wholly or even mostly responsible for starving children ANYWHERE, then I feel bad for you because you've lost faith in humanity."

Byrd, read and weep:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press.

Ousting Saddam does not require over 300,000 US troops, it requires intel, and that Canadian sniper which nailed that 1000+ yard shot.

You're right, but that's illegal and requires us to kill him. Technically, we don't want to kill him, just relieve him of power.

Feukulor
the iraqis have more confidence in us then they do in sadam. does that tell you anything when they are willing to trust infidels over thier own leader?

Gryn
are you saying because the germans killer people of other races it is ok for sadam?

Gryn
Byrd, read and weep:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

So, let me make sure I understand this:

Sanctions try to prevent the sale of oil, other than for food and other necessities.

Saddam Hussien continues building outrageous palaces while his people starve.

This is somehow the US' fault.

Okay, gotcha now.

You know, some context around that quote might be helpful.

X_Berg
yes i do belive that the US will help the iraqi people

Dogfather_jr

Good God man, are you ignoring the fact that "american" point of view was that it didn't MATTER that 500,000 children were starved due to american motives was ok then? The starving of half a million children IS the fault of America.

Here's another clue.. we will do whatever it takes to keep the white rich rich.

Gryn
Madeleine Albright is not part of the current administration. her quotes have nothing to do with this military action.

Gryn
I'm pissed off we're not starving more people in our own country... you know how much I have to pay out of my paycheck cause someone else can't find a job.. fuk u

oompa loompas need the aid

When is everyone going to realize that GWB is not in charge (he's a puppet leader, imho), but that some of the founding members of The Project for a New American Century are.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Everyone here, whether you are for or against GWB should visit this website and read what is in store for America if we continue to let these people run OUR country.

And please, for America, regardless of who you vote for in 2004, VOTE!

If you have yet to register to vote, here is the address:

http://www.state.ma.us/sec/ele/elestu/stuidx.htm

True Americans VOTE!

Captain_America so ignorantly stated:
"Madeleine Albright is not part of the current administration. her quotes have nothing to do with this military action."

Heh. Enough said.

Here's another Z to add to your current zzzzz's

Vote john haglan for prez!

Frksamor: We could argue what you meant by 'getting in it' but I accept your point.

Bass555: Yours was very telling.

You can't leave me on a cliffhanger like that. Elaborate man.

Also, you should read this regarding the leaders of OUR nation (apologize in advance for the long post, but worth reading):

"Blood Money" William Rivers Pitt

George W. Bush gave a speech Wednesday night before the Godfather of conservative Washington think tanks, the American
Enterprise Institute. In his speech, Bush quantified his coming war with Iraq as part of a larger struggle to bring pro-western
governments into power in the Middle East. Couched in hopeful language describing peace and freedom for all, the speech was in fact the closest articulation of the actual plan for Iraq that has yet been heard from the administration.

In a previous truthout article from February 21, the ideological connections between an extremist right-wing Washington think tank and the foreign policy aspirations of the Bush administration were detailed.

The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.

PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's
heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.

Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.

Who is PNAC? Its members include:

* Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;

* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;

* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;

* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;

* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;

* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;

* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;

* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;

* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;

* William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.

The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.

The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.

The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the
establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.

Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this aspect of the grand plan in the September 2002 issue of his
journal, 'Commentary'. In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam."

This casts Bush's speech to AEI on Wednesday in a completely different light.

Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Paeans to the idea of Iraqi liberation and democratization are cynical in their
inception. At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line.

At the end of the day, however, ideology is only good for bull sessions in the board room and the bar. Something has to grease the skids, to make the whole thing worthwhile to those involved, and entice those outside the loop to get into the game.

Thus, the payout.

It is well known by now that Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, served as chairman and chief executive of the
Dallas-based petroleum corporation Halliburton. During his tenure, according to oil industry executives and United Nations records,
Halliburton did a brisk $73 million in business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. While working face-to-face with Hussein, Cheney and
Halliburton were also moving into position to capitalize upon Hussein's removal from power. In October of 1995, the same month
Cheney was made CEO of Halliburton, that company announced a deal that would put it first in line should war break out in Iraq. Their job: To take control of burning oil wells, put out the fires, and prepare them for service.

Another corporation that stands to do well by a war in Iraq is Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Ostensibly, Brown & Root is in the construction business, and thus has won a share of the $900 million government contract for the rebuilding of post-war Iraqi bridges, roads and other basic infrastructure. This is but the tip of the financial iceberg, as the oil wells will also have to be repaired after parent-company Halliburton puts out the fires.

More ominously is Brown & Root's stock in trade: the building of permanent American military bases. There are twelve permanent
U.S. bases in Kosovo today, all built and maintained by Brown & Root for a multi-billion dollar profit. If anyone should wonder why the administration has not offered an exit strategy to the Iraq war plans, the presence of Brown & Root should answer them succinctly. We do not plan on exiting. In all likelihood, Brown & Root is in Iraq to build permanent bases there, from which attacks upon other Middle Eastern nations can be staged and managed.

Again, this casts Bush's speech on Wednesday in a new light.

Being at the center of the action is nothing new for Halliburton and Brown & Root. The two companies have worked closely with
governments in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia during the worst chapters in those nation's histories. Many environmental and human rights groups claim that Cheney, Halliburton and Brown & Root were, in fact, centrally involved in these fiascos. More recently, Brown & Root was contracted by the Defense Department to build cells for detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill for that one project came to $300 million.

Cheney became involved with PNAC officially in 1997, while still profiting from deals between Halliburton and Hussein. One year
later, Cheney and PNAC began actively and publicly agitating for war on Iraq. They have not stopped to this very day.

Another company with a vested interest in both war on Iraq and massively increased defense spending is the Carlyle Group. Carlyle, a private global investment firm with more than $12.5 billion in capital under management, was formed in 1987. Its interests are spread across 164 companies, including telecommunications firms and defense contractors. It is staffed at the highest levels by former members of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Former President George H. W. Bush is himself employed by Carlyle as a senior advisor, as is long-time Bush family advisor and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

One company acquired by Carlyle is United Defense, a weapons manufacturer based in Arlington, VA. United Defense provides the Defense Department with combat vehicle systems, fire support, combat support vehicle systems, weapons delivery systems,
amphibious assault vehicles, combat support services and naval armaments. Specifically, United Defense manufactures the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M113 armored personnel carrier, the M88A2 Recovery Vehicle, the Grizzly, the M9 ACE, the Composite Armored Vehicle, the M6 Linebacker, the M7 BFIST, the Armored Gun System, the M4 Command and Control Vehicle, the Battle Command Vehicle, the Paladin, the Crusader, and Electric Gun/Pulse Power weapons technology.

In other words, everything a growing Defense Department, a war in Iraq, and a burgeoning American military empire needs.

Ironically, one group that won't profit from Carlyle's involvement in American military buildup is the family of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family fortune was amassed by Mohammed bin Laden, father of Osama, who built a multi-billion dollar construction empire through contracts with the Saudi government. The Saudi BinLaden Group, as this company is called, was heavily invested in Carlyle for years. Specifically, they were invested in Carlyle's Partners II Fund, which includes in that portfolio United Defense and other weapons manufacturers.

This relationship was described in a September 27, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'Bin Laden Family Could Profit
From Jump in Defense Spending Due to Ties to US Bank.' The 'bank' in question was the Carlyle Group. A follow-up article published by the Journal on September 28 entitled ' Bin Laden Family Has Intricate Ties With Washington - Saudi Clan Has Had Access To Influential Republicans ' further describes the relationship. In October of 2001, Saudi BinLaden and Carlyle severed their relationship by mutual agreement. The timing is auspicious.

There are a number of depths to be plumbed in all of this. The Bush administration has claimed all along that this war with Iraq is
about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, though through it all they have roundly failed to establish any basis for either accusation. On Wednesday, Bush went further to claim that the war is about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East. This ignores cultural realities on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region that, salted with decades of deep mistrust for American motives, make such a democracy movement brought at the point of the sword utterly impossible to achieve.

This movement, cloaked in democracy, is in fact a PNAC-inspired push for an American global empire. It behooves Americans to
understand that there is a great difference between being the citizen of a constitutional democracy and being a citizen of an empire. The establishment of an empire requires some significant sacrifices.

Essential social, medical, educational and retirement services will have to be gutted so that those funds can be directed towards a necessary military buildup. Actions taken abroad to establish the preeminence of American power, most specifically in the Middle East, will bring a torrent of terrorist attacks to the home front. Such attacks will bring about the final suspension of constitutional rights and the rule of habeas corpus, as we will find ourselves under martial law. In the end, however, this may be inevitable. An empire cannot function with the slow, cumbersome machine of a constitutional democracy on its back. Empires must be ruled with speed and ruthlessness, in a manner utterly antithetical to the way in which America has been
governed for 227 years.

And yes, of course, a great many people will die.

It would be one thing if all of this was based purely on the ideology of our leaders. It is another thing altogether to consider the
incredible profit motive behind it all. The President, his father, the Vice President, a whole host of powerful government officials, along with stockholders and executives from Halliburton and Carlyle, stand to make a mint off this war. Long-time corporate sponsors from the defense, construction and petroleum industries will likewise profit enormously.

Critics of the Bush administration like to bandy about the word "fascist" when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi stormtroopers marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit. It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini, dubbed 'the father of Fascism,' defined the word in a far more pertinent fashion. "Fascism," said Mussolini, "should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Boycott the French, the Germans, and the other 114 nations who stand against this Iraq war all you wish. France and Germany do not oppose Bush because they are cowards, or because they enjoy the existence of Saddam Hussein. France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again.

Would that we Americans could be so wise.

-------

Gryn

Your argument, then, is that any economic sanctions the US imposes are unnecessary, unjustified and therefore wrong?

How do you propose we deal with problem countries?

Suebhoney - dont post long shiat like that assfuk

Gryn
Dogfather_jr
Good God man, are you ignoring the fact that "american" point of view was that it didn't MATTER that 500,000 children were starved due to american motives was ok then? The starving of half a million children IS the fault of America.
Give me the rest of the text of that conversationt hat shows that the quote is in context and relevant and then we'll talk.
Simple fact of the matter is that Saddam Husein had the ability to feed people, but instead continued to build himself palaces. That makes him a bad person. It is not due to 'American motives'.

ok i really gotta get to work. enjoy the flame war.

Gte629: Try reading it before you say that.

Besides, this is the perfect forum for it.